Tong tien vao theo khoang (KHONG phai so du vi)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: MONA Pay does not hold funds or maintain a wallet balance, so the output is incoming money into the user's bank account. It also mentions data by day. However, it doesn't cover authentication/scope requirements, rate limits, or whether the range is inclusive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loading the core purpose and then the important caveat. The bilingual phrasing is dense but each clause serves a purpose, though the repetition of the 'no balance' point in both Vietnamese and English is slightly redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides necessary context about what is returned (totals, transaction count, per-day data) and the important domain fact that there is no wallet balance. It could mention response format or pagination, but overall it's sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so start_date and end_date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the concept of a date range but no format or boundary details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description specifies the resource (incoming totals over a date range) and adds a critical clarification: MONA Pay holds no wallet balance, so this is not a wallet-balance query. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like monapay_get_transaction and monapay_list_transactions by focusing on aggregate summaries, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for date-range summary queries but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus monapay_list_transactions or other aggregation tools. The negative clarification ('not wallet balance') helps avoid a specific mis-use but doesn't provide full when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.